While Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Vice President William Lai (賴清德) remains ahead in the polls and the candidates for the opposition parties — the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party — have yet to agree on a proposed “blue-white alliance,” anything could happen in the presidential race.
Whichever party wins in January next year, it must have a robust foreign policy, given the fraught geopolitical dynamics, both globally and regionally.
Opposition parties criticize the government’s foreign policy, but must take account of the geopolitical circumstances that have changed enormously in the past five or so years, and little has been a result of Taiwan’s actions.
The KMT must recognize that the international situation is very different from the one former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) knew when he left office eight years ago.
In this region alone, countries are realigning and reassessing priorities, including Japan, the two Koreas, China, Russia, the Philippines, Australia and India.
Should it win, the KMT would need to engage with international dynamics it did not consider before, let go of its skepticism of the US and Japan and open up to engagement with India, a major international player that is increasingly important in the region.
Japan has been a friend to Taiwan, especially since the administrations of the late Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe. Tokyo’s interest in maintaining peace in the Taiwan Strait is not born predominantly of friendship: It is due to hard geopolitical reality. Again, the changes in the dynamic for Japan are not because of Japan’s actions, but because of an increasingly aggressive China.
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida intends to double defense spending to 2 percent of GDP within five years and is actively looking to deepen defense cooperation with regional allies such as India, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines.
Kishida visited Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr in Manila on Friday to discuss tightening security ties and strengthening their trilateral partnership with the US.
Just as China is the main driving force behind Japan’s moves, India also finds itself performing a balancing act amid its relations with China and Taiwan.
Delhi stands to benefit greatly from the continuation of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, and as a member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with partners Japan, the US and Australia, is expected to ensure Taiwan’s continued sovereignty.
India enjoys good relations and economic ties with Taiwan at the governmental and parliamentary levels, although this could be improved. At the civil society level, Indians have a favorable image of Taiwan.
Beijing’s aggressive moves and unfounded claims on Indian territory complicate Delhi’s relations with China and provide a military aspect to its interests in maintaining peace in the Taiwan Strait.
China would be much strengthened if it successfully invaded Taiwan, enabling it to focus its attention and resources on its Himalayan border with India.
Delhi is also concerned that if the People’s Liberation Army were unsuccessful in invading Taiwan, Beijing would seek to restore its military reputation by gaining control of Indian territory at the border instead.
India, then, could be a powerful, interested partner in helping Taiwan’s incoming administration deter Chinese aggression in the Taiwan Strait.
Delhi remains wary of provoking Beijing by strengthening ties with Taiwan. However, much could be done at the parliamentary level through mutual visits by Indian and Taiwanese lawmakers, and the new government in Taipei should be willing to actively encourage this.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS